New Astra Militarum Codex (Pre-Order Next Weekend, Oct 7 Release)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Colonel Cross**

I have 6 original ones and 5 of them have participated in nearly all of my 8th edition games. My flgs doesn't allow using codex and index units of the same faction in tournaments. Which is sad in this 1 particular case.

**Galas**

Whys that Colonel Cross? GW itself have said in one of their FAQS that if one unit is not in the Codex but in the Index, you can use the Index entry with the more to date point costs for their weapons.

**Red Corsair**

Galas wrote:
Whys that Colonel Cross? GW itself have said in one of their FAQS that if one unit is not in the Codex but in the Index, you can use the Index entry with the more to date point costs for their weapons.

It's probably an attempt to cut down on chaos/imperial soup armies. They are good from the index alone but once you start using codexes full of traits and stratagems is can get even more absurd. I'd guess it wasn't an attempt to stop people from using things like bike characters and rough riders though I could be wrong

**Colonel Cross**

Yeah, my flgs has lots of added modifiers to our tournaments to make them less accessible to WAAC lists. For instance, our upcoming tournament only allows for 1 BN, no LoW, units in reserves deploy last, etc.

**Galas**

I don't understand how baning Index-only units like Rough Riders, Characters on Bikes, etc... from being used with their army stops WAAC lists, but well. It isn't my store

**Heafstaag**

So are rough riders just gone now?

**Derek4real**

So whats GW's reason for not giving Astra Militarum a Limted Edition Codex?

How do they decide which factions get a Limited Edition Codex?

**Crimson Devil**

Heafstaag wrote:
So are rough riders just gone now?

Kind of. They don't have any current models so they don't get rules in the codex. But GW has stated that you can continue to use the index for options that are not in the codex.

**Galas**

Yeah, Indexs are gonna be the "Compendiums" of Age of Sigmar. You'll be able to use them, but they are more like a bone throw to the old players.

**Colonel Cross**

Galas wrote:
I don't understand how baning Index-only units like Rough Riders, Characters on Bikes, etc... from being used with their army stops WAAC lists, but well. It isn't my store

I'm only assuming that is their reasoning. They didn't say what the purpose was behind that ruling. I know they don't want people Cherry picking something that may be better in the index but using everything else in the codex. In fact, I should ask them to see if they would allow units that no longer appear in the codex but are in the index.

**Heafstaag**

That is disheartening. Would it be that hard for gw to release a basic rough rider kit? I mean come on, they have like 50 types of cavalry for the fantasy range...

The embers of my interest in 40k are cooling rapidly.

**Zuri Prime**

Heafstaag wrote:
So...why are rough riders not in the codex? WTF.

Units not included in the codex, but are included in the index, are still legal. Pretty sure this was common knowledge by now.

**ph34r**

Heafstaag wrote:
That is disheartening. Would it be that hard for gw to release a basic rough rider kit? I mean come on, they have like 50 types of cavalry for the fantasy range...

The embers of my interest in 40k are cooling rapidly.

I think they figure most IG players, like myself, don't care nearly as much about rough riders as we might about any huge number of other guard infantry.

**Heafstaag**

ph34r wrote:
Heafstaag wrote:
That is disheartening. Would it be that hard for gw to release a basic rough rider kit? I mean come on, they have like 50 types of cavalry for the fantasy range...

The embers of my interest in 40k are cooling rapidly.
I think they figure most IG players, like myself, don't care nearly as much about rough riders as we might about any huge number of other guard infantry.

It would be pretty easy to make generate some interest and sales for rough riders...make a kit and give them more options.

Anyways, I still may convert up some rough riders, but I don't even see the point if they are just going to be relegated to a level just above squats.

**Voss**

Zuri Prime wrote:
Heafstaag wrote:
So...why are rough riders not in the codex? WTF.

Units not included in the codex, but are included in the index, are still legal. Pretty sure this was common knowledge by now.

It is... but not including them in the codex suggest some long term planning that includes elimination. It seems particularly odd given the focus on dead army lines. What happens when (say, by the next guard codex) those old metals are completely gone from the webstore like the rough riders?

Big picture suggests 'yeah, sure, use the index for old stuff' is an attitude that won't last forever. It may not even last an edition cycle. Some 'General's Compendium' in a year or two will likely bring the hammer down.

**H.B.M.C.**

Easier to eliminate them than make a new plastic kit, and as the Codex releases eventually make the Indices obsolete (except for Sisters players, naturally), they will cease printing them, rendering any units 'left behind' illegal.

And thus anything without a model will cease to have rules, and GW will be forever protected from the pernicious predations of the truly evil nature of third party bitz makers and other miniature companies. Purity will reign. GW will conquer all.

**Heafstaag**

Voss wrote:
Zuri Prime wrote:
Heafstaag wrote:
So...why are rough riders not in the codex? WTF.

Units not included in the codex, but are included in the index, are still legal. Pretty sure this was common knowledge by now.

It is... but not including them in the codex suggest some long term planning that includes elimination. It seems particularly odd given the focus on dead army lines. What happens when (say, by the next guard codex) those old metals are completely gone from the webstore like the rough riders?

Big picture suggests 'yeah, sure, use the index for old stuff' is an attitude that won't last forever. It may not even last an edition cycle. Some 'General's Compendium' in a year or two will likely bring the hammer down.

That's my fear.

**tankboy145**

Derek4real wrote:
So whats GW's reason for not giving Astra Militarum a Limted Edition Codex?

How do they decide which factions get a Limited Edition Codex?

They have a collectors edition if that's what you're talking about?

**Cataphract**

Go on.

**NivlacSupreme**

Cataphract wrote:
Go on.

I like the Mordian but they'd be expensive as feth.

**Davor**

Kanluwen wrote:
Davor wrote:
Just saw this thread. I am not in a mood to read 26 pages. Has it been mentioned how this will apply to Genestealer Cults? I mean if going by the Index 2 book, Genestealer Cults can use any keywords that have Astra Militarium in it correct?

So not being a IG/AM player but trying to start a Genestealer Cult army, can I buy this codex and use all the units in it?

I would say so.

Some will be more applicable than others, as I expect the Leman Russ variants that GSC can take as part of their Index list will get the same boosts as the Codex Guard ones(Grinding Advance, etc), but gaining the artillery and other similar things will be a big boost too.

Thank you for the reply. Good to know.

Derek4real wrote:So whats GW's reason for not giving Astra Militarum a Limted Edition Codex?

How do they decide which factions get a Limited Edition Codex?

What would this be by chance? https://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Codex-Astra-Militarum-collectors-2017 (and before you get excited, those are Canadian prices.

)

I think they are called Collector's Edition now and forgo what ever number out of 2000 copies.

**Lone Cat**

SilverAlien wrote:
I already got my codices, CSM, admech, and DG. You know, the balanced ones that managed to mostly avoid codex creep.

I'd rather not imagine codex creep getting worse. I'd rather we actually had a balanced edition. I actually had hope they might manage it as well, which in retrospect was silly. This is wardian levels of cheese across most of the army, which honestly is something even tau/eldar didn't quite manage, you still had to cherry pick units there.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lone Cat wrote:
Wow! Napoleonic regiments is LIVE!

Will Rough Riders get carapace armor upgrade and swap their lances with lasguns like in 3rd Edition?

Rough riders aren't even in the codex and don't benefit from any of the regiment doctrines from what I can tell.

That means no more cav units / Horse riders?

so bad.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrookM wrote:
Rough Riders have the <REGIMENT> keyword, so rejoice.

Does that means there's a possibility to have horse riding TROOPS choices rather than FAST ATTACK?

**BrookM**

Lone Cat wrote:
BrookM wrote:
Rough Riders have the <REGIMENT> keyword, so rejoice.

Does that means there's a possibility to have horse riding TROOPS choices rather than FAST ATTACK?

I think you really, REALLY need to read the Index and / or codex, which will answer all your questions.

But no, they do not become troops.

**daedalus**

NivlacSupreme wrote:

I like the Mordian but they'd be expensive as feth.

It's not really doing much for me. Yeah, it's close. I need those shoulder boards though. I NEED them.

Which is fine by me: I actually like the pewter guys. They're goofy, but they have character. For any special weapons I just backfill from Victoria.

**gungo**

BrookM wrote:
Lone Cat wrote:
BrookM wrote:
Rough Riders have the <REGIMENT> keyword, so rejoice.

Does that means there's a possibility to have horse riding TROOPS choices rather than FAST ATTACK?
I think you really, REALLY need to read the Index and / or codex, which will answer all your questions.

But no, they do not become troops.

Play krieg rejoice

**Dr_Keenbean**

Davor wrote:

Derek4real wrote:So whats GW's reason for not giving Astra Militarum a Limted Edition Codex?

How do they decide which factions get a Limited Edition Codex?

What would this be by chance? https://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Codex-Astra-Militarum-collectors-2017 (and before you get excited, those are Canadian prices. )

I think they are called Collector's Edition now and forgo what ever number out of 2000 copies.

There's 3 tiers of codex: normal, collector's, limited.

Collector's Edition is a soft black cover with different artwork but otherwise the same as the normal edition.

Limited is usually multiple books in a larger case with other bits like CP/VP counters, tokens, etc.

Space Marines Primaris Edition
Death Guard Limited Edition

So, yeah, IG do not have one for some reason. :(

**BrookM**

AdMech, Grey Knights and Chaos didn't a super expensive one either IIRC.

**Bobug**

Id be surprised if rough riders got dropped forever as theres artwork of new rough riders in the 8th edition rulebook. Id be more inclined to believe theyre going to get a plastic kit with in-box rules at a much later date but as they currently dont have a model they havent been included

**ChargerIIC**

Rough Riders are still legal per the Codex/Index FAQ:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/07/05/codexes-your-questions-answered-july-5gw-homepage-post-2/

**Fayric**

GW hate horses.
Just look at AoS -any unit riding horses are either not sold anymore, not included in updated rulebooks or get such crappy rules no one can include them in a serious game.
Instead you get IP protected demigryphs, bird cavalry, monster pigs, dragondogs etc.

The only hope Rough Riders have is if GW do a specific guard codex and release some weird lizard-riding cavalry. (i think thats a thing, but not sure about the source).

Oh, and why the heck would anyone want to use Rough Riders?